Published: February
15, 2007
A response based on facts
John Lackey's editorial, "Let's ship out the weapons now" in the January 30 Richmond Register, was an example of how believing something is true, doesn't make it so. It deserves a response based on facts.
First, the effort to move Madison County's chemical weapons to some other stockpile site began in 1984. By 1988 the Army -- not any local government or group -- had made the decision to destroy chemical weapons at each stockpile site. The Army's decision was based on exhaustive assessments indicating that keeping these lethal weapons in place was far less risky than putting them on highways or railways. These risk assessments were punctuated by a string of federal laws barring movement of stockpiled chemical weapons from one site to another, laws that were created because nobody wanted any weapons moved INTO their community. What would Kentuckians say of Mr. Lackey's plan if we were to be the recipients of more weapons?
Ironic to Mr. Lackey's editorial, Kentucky was the first state to get such a federal law (Public Law 99-661, section 153(a) in 1986. Beginning in 1990 (Public Law 101-511), each annual Defense Spending Bill contained nation-wide language barring moving chemical weapons across state lines. It has been the well-conceived law, based on the security of the weapons, environmental, health and safety considerations of states through which weapons would be shipped, and the staunch opposition of most chemical weapons sites to import anyone else's stockpile. By 1994 the ban on interstate transportation within the U.S. became part of an Authorizing Bill (Public Law 103-337 §143 (a)), making it the perpetual law of the land. It was clearly not something that was "slipped through Congress" as Mr. Lackey stated.
With the transportation option decided against by the Army and banned by Congress, the Chemical Weapons Working Group has worked diligently on disposal of the weapons in the safest and most expeditious manner possible. That is precisely what we have now, with the contracts and permits issued for neutralization and supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) of the weapons. Contrary to what Mr. Lackey wrote, neither neutralization nor SCWO is "un-prototyped." Neutralization is a ubiquitous technology, safe and effective for both nerve and mustard agents. SCWO, while not available on a commercial scale, is known among government, agency and technology experts to be an environmentally sound and efficient technology.
Kentucky's situation in regard to our chemical weapons disposal technology is the envy of communities all over the world who have suffered and continue to suffer ill health linked to the impacts of toxic incinerator emissions, and communities where safe alternatives to incineration are not yet used. Chemical weapons incinerators in Utah, Oregon, Arkansas and Alabama (there are only four, not seven as Mr. Lackey stated) are burning weapons slowly, with no routine monitoring for PCBs, dioxins and heavy metals and chemical agent monitoring systems that have been the repeated target of whistleblower safety allegations. As these incinerators move toward mustard agent destruction, they face major hurdles; the Utah incinerator is actually being modified to allow for neutralization of mustard agents for which the incinerator emissions would blatantly violate air quality standards.
Lastly, Mr. Lackey's attack on the Citizens Advisory Commission was completely unfounded. Since 1994, CAC members, have spent hundreds of hours poring over highly technical data and soliciting input and involvement from a broad cross-section of our community. They held dozens and dozens of public meetings over the years to enable direct communication between government and Defense officials, scientists, state regulators, community leaders and local residents. They have taken great pains to operate in an open, transparent and objective manner. To suggest that the CAC, the Chemical Demilitarization Community Advisory Board (CDCAB) or any other local citizens group is linked to military profits is unjustifiable and insulting.
As for the fancy offices at Gibson Bay, etc. well, I believe Mr.. Lackey is again lost in the world of make-believe. Every citizen organization I know of that has worked on this issue has put the well being of the community far above any personal gain - be it fancy offices or trips to anywhere. I was under the impression that lawyers, particularly those running for judgeships, should be focused on facts and evidence, not conjecture and hear-say.
Baseless allegations are not at all helpful in this issue, particularly at a time when our community needs to continuing to pull together to ensure the Pentagon funding of the chemical demilitarization program . The CAC, CDCAB and countless local residents are well-informed and working toward safe disposal of these weapons. Everyone is welcome to join the effort to find positive solutions to the problems we face.